Whoever Could Object To An Oil Embargo Against Iran?

The mass media is suggesting to our gullible electorate that nobody could possibly object to the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council’s* proposed embargo on oil imports from Iran, in retaliation for that country’s apparent nuclear ambitions. Surely, it could only make the world a safer place? However, apparently innocuous policies can sometimes have unforeseen consequences.

The proposed embargo is predicated on the assumption that Iran really does want to build nuclear weapons, as distinct from developing the capacity for constructing nuclear weapons. Countries cannot neatly be divided into those that are nuclear powers and those that are not. There is a third category of country that has a latent nuclear weapons potential. Mr. Peter Jenkins, Britain’s permanent representative on the International Atomic Energy Agency between 2001 and 2006, would place Iran into this category. Countries with a latent atomic weapons potential acquire influence thereby and influence can be a valuable substitute for power. Furthermore, it can be achieved at a fraction of the cost and risk of having nuclear weapons in reality.

However, European Union countries and institutions are not known for the subtlety of their understanding or their measured policies.

An immediate consequence of the embargo is that Iran will lose markets for its oil in EU member states. However, this does not mean that Iran would sell less oil. It is estimated that the oil that they would have sold to Europe would then be sold to Asia – particularly to India and China. However, those countries will use their new-found market strength to demand substantial discounts in the price of the oil that they buy from Iran. Its effect on Iran will be to reduce the revenue that it receives from its oil. In the meanwhile, European Union member states will be forced to pay higher prices for the oil that they purchase from elsewhere.

The lower price of Iranian oil will not only (or even primarily) benefit consumers in India and China. Car drivers are very much of a minority in both countries. It will reduce the costs of industry in each of those emerging economies, facilitating their competition with what is left of British and other European manufacturing.

Another possibility is that Iran would block the Strait of Hormuz and prevent oil being shipped from any of the Gulf states. About 20% of the world’s supply of oil is transported through this waterway. This would increase the price of oil dramatically worsening the recession from which we are all suffering.

Of course, the consequences could be graver still. Iran will, almost certainly, see Israel as the motivator for the embargo and might retaliate militarily against that country. Alternatively or additionally, Iran might attack American bases in Bahrain, Qatar and oil installations in other Gulf states. In either eventuality, the United States would retaliate militarily against Iran, dragging the client states of the United States and Israel into the conflict.

Policies that are said to make the world a safer place sometimes have remarkably unsafe consequences.

*An interesting detail of this proposed decision is that although the Foreign Affairs Council is officially a meeting of the Council of the European Union (containing representative of member states), which is headed by the Rotating Presidency (currently the Government of Denmark), the Foreign Affairs Council is presided over by the EU’s High Representative, Baroness Ashton, who is also a Vice President of the Commission. This seems to indicate that this move to implement an embargo has originated within the institutions of the European Union – the staff of the High Representative and perhaps the European External Action Service – and not from the member states.

It is yet further proof that the Rotating Presidency (the personification of member state power) has been relegated to being a mere bauble. It no longer presides over the European Council (the meeting of heads of government), which is presided over by the new President of that body, Herman van Rompuy and it no longer presides over the Foreign Affairs Council. It simply holds the presidency (in effect the speakership) of the Council’s legislative role.

Furthermore, the UK has lost its ability to trade with the world.  That function is entirely controlled by the EU. Therefore, if sanctions are applied against a country, we must conform to the requirements of the EU Commission.

Finally, sanctions against Iran are hypocritical.  Why are sanctions not applied to other countries, but China in particular, for its unacceptable activities in Tibet?  China does not hold elections; Iran does hold elections.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Good article. Britain is no longer free, our freedom and democracy has been usurped by the E. U. Ashton who? Who ever voted for her…..no one did, did they? Unelected and faceless bureaucrats such as Ashton and Van Rompuy now make decisions for us, and implement policies which effect our lives, on behalf of their banking paymasters! The priority for us has to be to free ourselves from this Globalist Totalitarian state in the making.
    I do not like the theocratic regime in Iran, and would not like them to havecnuclear weapons but really why shouldn’t they have these missiles when we in Britain and the U.S.A have them? In my opinion they have just as much right to have them as us! There is no evidence that they are developing anything other than nuclear power for civilian benefit anyway. If I was Iran I would feel alot safer with nuclear weapons than without, you csn bet your bottom dollar America, Britain and Israel won’t attack them then!
    The Globalist, Zionist Plutocrats have their greedy eyes on Iran’s oil and gas resources as well as wishing to bring them into their corrupt debt-based Central Banking Scam ( Iran and it’s central bank is not part of their fractional reserve debt scam) so they can enslave the Iranian people in debt also.
    Funny thing is the globalist multinational corporations based in India, China, and the Far
    East would benefit from an EU oil embargo against Iran and resulting lower prices for Iranian oil because many of their production facilities are based there!
    The U.S., Britain and the EU establishments are hypocrites and war-mongers, better hope Ron Paul gets elected U.S. President …..probably not going to happen, but ourbest chance for peace!!!!

  2. Indeed, Mark!
    Back in 1992, Paul Wolfowitz proposed a new, more aggressive, US foreign policy following the collapse of the Soviet Union. In what become known as The Wolfowitz Doctrine, he stated that the USA’s chief objective with respect to the Middle East was “to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.”
    I believe that the United States is committed to toppling regimes in the Middle East that are not willing to cooperate with them, and will use a number of non-military methods (such as sanctions, or funding revolutions) to destabilise and subvert them. If this fails, as with Iraq, it seems the next step is to claim they’re producing weapons of mass destruction.
    Obviously for sanctions to work, the EU must also boycott Iranian oil.

  3. But to bulldoze Iran, first Syria must be toppled because of their pact if attacked.

    China has stated clearly an attack on Iran will be considered an act of war against themselves. They have already commissioned two oil tankers to Iran.

    Russia is backing Syria as well as Iran and has already delivered new fighters and equipment.

    India has agreed to buy Iran’s oil with gold, bypassing the unwanted dollar bond.

    None of these nations are in any real debt and are assumed to soon be bypassing the US dollar.

    The USA has sent a nuclear powered ship (USS Enterprise) that is due for decommissioning. People surmise it will be used as a cheap means of sinking it in somebody else’s waters when “friendlies” dressed as enemy will sink it killing all their seamen. A USS Liberty MkII. Or the old ships parked in Pearl harbour while the radar was, erm, removed to get the US in fighting stance.

    The EU’s crazy idea of non-trade with Iran will only weaken us. It the Straits are closed or the insurance companies get scared, its only “we the pawns” who pay.

    Iran now has intelligent area control of GPS signals. A considerable amount of US/EU hardware is rendered useless at best or suicidal at worst.

    I want all the people in the forces to know the US has built massive hospital units in the ‘stans to receive huge (I mean HUGE!) numbers of “our” wounded soldiers. Do you have the wits and the brains to turn your service down until it is really warranted?

  4. Our governments lies to us about Amhadinejhad, he did not say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map.
    How do we know they are telling us the truth now, they lied about WMDs, according to US intelligence services, Iran is NOT developing nuclear weapons and even if they were, they don’t have the means to deliver them long range, and even if they did, I think friendly trade and tourism with Iran would make us far safer than constantly threatening them.
    Friends are less likely to attack each other.
    Unless your friends are Israelis of course (Lavon affair, USS liberty, johnathon pollard case, zoom copter)

    Here’s former Reagan intelligence adviser Ray McGovern on Iran

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *